One dead, 5 hurt in shooting at Worthing HS (Houston)

[jpak]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8044190

<snip>

Too many people and I couldn't tell who had a gun. I was running for my life," witness Tordre McMillan said.

McMillan was playing baseball and girls were playing powder puff football on the field just before 7pm when it all happened.

According to eyewitnesses, several young men were among those in the bleachers when a car full of people whom police believe were gang members drove onto the field. There was a fist fight and even when it seemed to be over, many were left with a bad feeling.

"We knew something was up because the boy, he was about to drop the gun but he picked it up and so he walked onto the field and so we're leaving and before we even got off, they already started shooting," Worthing High School student Shayagne Durham said.

<more>


They need more guns at Powder Puff Football games

yup

:thumbsdown:

[northoftheborder]

1. no, do not need more guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. So some teen-aged criminals do a drive-by shooting with illegal guns...

...and you want to take my legal guns away as a solution? No.

[Bold Lib]

29. Well said!

[WatsonT]

176. Apparently criminal gang members and law abiding citizens are the same thing

it boggles the mind how these people function with such defective logic.

[rrneck]

3. Need fewer criminals. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Sounds like a gang violence problem.

[jpak]

5. How guns from law abiding gun shops and gun shows and gun owners get into the hands

of bad guys?

:shrug:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. Bad guys ignore the laws which are there to prevent them from having guns or misusing them?

Bad guys typically don't plan on getting caught and being responsible for thier actions... it's no surprise they ignore the laws.

:Shrug:

[jpak]

9. But what law abider would sell or give a gun to a bad guy?

If all were law abiders, no criminals would have guns

right?

:shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

15. The laws doesn't allow private sellers to check out the buyer. N/T

[spin]

47. That should and could be changed. (n/t)

[TheWraith]

16. Apparently, you've never heard of a thing called THEFT.

Which is where most crime guns come from. No criminal is going to pay $600 for a pistol which they're just going to dump after their crime, and no private seller is going to sell some gang member a $600 gun for $100.

[Starboard Tack]

174. Are you saying that all or most guns used in crimes are stolen?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. Not many criminals advertise.

Some go so far as to commit fraulent actions and use false IDs or lies describing their history/identity.
If criminals were so easy to spot there would not be much of a crime problem.

:shrug:

[rl6214]

23. Yeah, because gangbangers don't commit robberies do they.

:sarcasm:

[rrneck]

8. By breaking the law. duh. nt

[jpak]

10. So there is law breaking going on in gun shops and gun shows - yes?

:shrug:

[rrneck]

11. *sigh*

theft
 
 /θɛft/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2.
an instance of this.
3.
Archaic . something stolen.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Excellent point

Where do all these illegal guns come from? Bad guys aren't allowed them right. So, how is it possible? Could it be that some GOOD guys are maybe not so GOOD? Or are they careless? (Couldn't possibly be, could they?)
How about a law that says if a gun registered to an individual is used in a crime, that individual gets charged with that crime as an accessory before the fact?
And anyone found with a weapon without a serial number goes straight to jail.

[rrneck]

13. What exculpatory evidence would you allow? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Burglars sometimes get guns in thefts.

Then they sell them.

Also, private individuals don't have access to the NICS system. If I were to sell some of my guns privately I would have no way of checking if the person I was selling to was legal or not.

Most of us here support changing the laws to allow private sellers to access the NICS system, or some other method to allow private sellers to know the status of the buyer.

Naturally people like you blame us for not checking even though the law won't let us check.

[Starboard Tack]

20. I hold you resposible as I do myself.

As you always say, it's about responsible gun ownership. You have a right to own and bear, not to be sloppy. And I know you are not sloppy, because you have gun safes as big as my house and dogs and all. So, you should be OK..

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Nope. Once something is stolen it is not under your control.

If your credit card is stolen, you are not responsible for all the bills the criminals will run up.

If your car (General you, IIRC you don't have a car.) is stolen you aren't responsible for the accident the criminal will have.

And so on. If my guns get stolen them I am not responsible if 20 years later one is used in a crime.

I am not careless with my guns as they cost money and I don't want to have to replace them. But no home security, or personal security, is perfect. You are demanding perfection in an inperfect world. You won't get it.

Further, I can't very well perform a check that the law forbids me to. By law we have to take a person's word for it that they are not forbidden to have guns. If I follow the law you can't then accuse me of doing something illegal.

[Starboard Tack]

31. If I follow the law you can't then accuse me of doing something illegal.

Correct. That's why the laws need to be changed to make people more accountable for their actions and/or negligence. Of course we don't live in a perfect world. We wouldn't need or want guns in a perfect world. Negligence and carelessness are way to common and need to be addressed. It's your choice to own and carry. So it's your responsibility to ensure that your guns stay out of the wrong hands. It should be established at the time of the theft whether you were negligible or not. That way, if a crime is eventually committed with your weapon, then you should be prosecuted for that negligence. Victims could always sue you too.

[PavePusher]

32. Firstly, how would you define "negligent" with respect to a stolen firearm....

and secondly, to be consistent, would you apply that definition and series of punishments to every other stolen object?

[Glassunion]

33. Of course not. No other object is designed to kill.

So there should be laws that victims of theft should have to stand trial for being victims.

Fucking nanny-state bullshit.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Negligent would include leaving guns around for kids to play with

Not securing them against theft. Gun dealers, especially should be subject to close scrutiny, in this regard. What do other stolen objects have to do with guns?

[aikoaiko]

168. This "not securing them from theft" is unreasonable.

Its a "blame the victim of the crime" tactic. Thieves, burglars, and home invaders are solely responsible when they steal guns.


However, gun owners do have a responsibility to protect children who are invited into their homes.

[rrneck]

34. What exculpatory evidence would you allow? nt

[Glassunion]

35. None... Victims of burglary = guilty of criminal negligence.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Would depend on the situation

Hypothetical: Your house is destroyed by an act of nature or force outside your control (plane crashes into it). The contents get dispersed and a gun is found by someone who keeps or sells to another etc..
A court should decide. Also annual registration is probably a good idea, with proof that you still possess your weapons.

[rrneck]

40. The courts need some sort of workable statute that

takes into consideration the way people's lives are actually lived. That statute would probably have to focus on one or both time lines surrounding the loss of the weapon; before the loss or after it.

Any statute that concerns itself with the circumstances after the loss would require the authorities to ascertain whether or not some sort of locked device were properly used and who may have had access to its contents. Given the range of spouses, offspring, lovers, siblings, relatives, roommates, friends, babysitters, house sitters, maintenance personnel, and everybody they know or may have met the investigative field is impossibly large. And it gets larger every day the gun is missing and the owner doesn't know it. In a country with eighty million gun owners and three hundred million guns.

The other side of the loss time line offers an even greater logistical and legislative set of impossibilities. Do I need to belabor the obvious and remind you that firearms registration alone, much less annual firearms re-registration, would go over like a turd in a punch bowl in this country or just about any other on the planet for that matter? Do you know why? Because compelling people to reveal to the government the nature, location, and transfers of their private property amounts to regulating their private relationships with others. Short of some compelling reason to do so usually involving a court mandated individual like a parole officer or mental health professional, regulating individual relationships is a horrible violation of citizens right to privacy.

I never cease to be amazed at how people will so willingly violate the rights of others as long as they feel their own rights are not affected. You don't like guns so you don't mind the creation of layers of intrusive regulations that serve no purpose other than the care and feeding of your ideology. Registration is an exercise in futility without the establishment of a chain of custody. You would compel people to report to the government the nature, location, quantity, storage method and the names of everyone that has access to a firearm with no evidence that they have in the past or will in the future commit any crime or act of negligence.

Regulations like that force people to make a choice between compliance and self defense. If somebody has a gun and they know somebody who may need access to it, they will have to determine whether or not, at some future time, they will be indicted for a crime they could not possibly foresee. Vaguely written laws capriciously enforced are stock and trade for totalitarian regimes the world over. The disconnect between your ideology and the responsibility you take for it is where tyranny starts. Enough people like you voting for politicians willing to enact public policy like that can see to it we will never have to fight out own military because we will have already been cowed into obedience by government that only works those who have the wealth and power to force compliance with their irresponsible ideology.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Many good points.

So what's the solution? I accept that we should not intrude on rights to privacy beyond initial registration. But the price of exercising this, or any right, is to be responsible. This needs to be stressed so that people fully recognize the potential consequences of screwing up. They could sign off on that at time of purchase. Individuals should be answerable if their actions, or lack thereof, lead to injuring others. It's all about accountability.

And I do not dislike guns for the 100th time. I own two. I just don't like carrying them around other people in normal settings. I feel they have no place in social situations, the mall, schools, bars etc. or anywhere where people congregate, unless circumstances appear to require it. I was in LA during the riots (Rodney King) and I definitely considered leaving home armed, but I didn't. My choice. If I had been armed I would probably be dead along with others. Instead I gave full concentration on driving across a median at a burned out crossroad in south central, with 100* people throwing shit at me. I made it out with nobody getting hurt, thankfully. I'm real glad I didn't have the option. But that's just me.
As usual I enjoy a good discussion with you.

[rrneck]

43. There is no solution.

No preemptive enforcement solution anyway. We (the government) cannot compel without remedy. To do so would be tyrannical. If the police can't be there to save you when you get into trouble, it simply has no business telling you how to solve the problem yourself. There are limits of course. That's why, for example, indiscriminate weapons are really hard to get and even if you have to shoot somebody you have a helluva lot of explaining to do. The employment of deadly force is a last ditch effort to stay alive and only that necessity makes it worth risking jail if you do it wrong.

Fortunately, enforcement isn't the only way to steer a culture. It isn't even the best way. People naturally want to cooperate. We're built to find common ground. We're not a bunch of lone predators prowling the landscape but a great grazing herd that gets too fat when the grass is too green. As long as everybody behaves in a more or less predictable fashion we can get along just fine. Predictability requires understanding. Understanding is gained through education. When we learn about others they aren't so scary and that's usually about all it takes.

Do you lock your doors at night? Most people do. We lock our doors against the few members of the herd that can't work and play well with others. But they aren't vampires. They are still out there when we go outside. If we see the sense of having a firearm in the home to defend ourselves against them it makes no sense to ignore the threat when we go out among them, or to make it illegal without a way for the state to intervene if they assault someone.

Of course if someone goes out among people armed they will have a significant advantage in the disparity of force and that does become a matter of interest for those who are not armed. It is just unreasonable to demand that disparity be remedied with the penal code when the discomfort is just that - discomfort and not actual injury. Here, I think, is the great advantage of CCW laws. They won't prevent anyone from using a firearm unwisely, but they do offer a codification of behavior that would occur anyway. If someone makes a risk assessment they will arm themselves against that risk whether it's legal or not. Guns are a fact of life in this country and the best way to deal with the reality of that technology is to codify it in some way that makes it more or less predictable. If you see someone with a gun it helps a lot if you are able to assume they had to get a little training in the law and be a fairly stable person. When we meet a stranger we make a whole raft of evaluations about them taken from behavioral cues so numerous we are barely aware of them. CCW laws just aid in the evaluation process that gives us common ground with the other members of our herd. It beats sniffing butts.

[Starboard Tack]

44. We very rarely lock our door.

Usually lock it if we're going to be away overnight or longer. Never had anything stolen except my car in NY. Stolen by the city for parking in the wrong place. When I went to pick it up there were about 300 other people looking for their cars. If any one of them had been armed I may have witnessed a blood bath, except the city must've anticipated that because all the employees were behind bullet proof glass.
If you want to carry, that's on you. Personally I think it extremely foolish, but it is your choice, permit or not. If I felt any need to carry, I would move. Guns are a fact of life in this country and in this world, so are drugs and religion. I find all three of them unnecessary and easy to avoid. Life is way more fun without them.

[rrneck]

45. I don't carry m'self.

This whole debate is a tempest in a teapot. Only a small percentage of gun owners carry anyway, and barring serious socioeconomic upheaval or a zombie invasion it won't be a big deal in real life. Politics is another matter, and liberals are on the wrong side of this issue. The sooner we get over it the fewer elections we will lose because of it.

[Starboard Tack]

48. You have a good point. It should not be a wedge issue.

But that's no reason not to speak our minds, especially here. What you're saying is that we should cave in to a right wing, fear mongering agenda, increasing their corporate profits and inflaming those who see through the propaganda. I'm not suggesting, by any means, that the DNC, or Obama, should broach this subject in next year's elections. I see this more of a social, ethical and psychological issue, rather than a partisan, political issue.

[rrneck]

61. Not at all.

I don't do "cave in".

Actually, the NRA has a significant advantage over the VPC. But it's not the kind of advantage you might think. Both organizations are just corporations that exist for the production of ideology. Wayne LaPierre, Paul Helmke and the rest aren't Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals or anything of the sort. They're capitalists. The issue doesn't matter. Morality doesn't matter. People don't matter. Only money matters. The NRA's advantage is simply that they have a better business model. They have an actual object (a gun) upon which to hang their rhetoric. Real people can use a real object with actual utility. It doesn't matter how much statistical bullshit and fear mongering rhetoric the VPC produces, they will never beat the NRA in the marketplace of dueling ideologies.

The tragedy is that we as a people have become such consumers we simply select whatever ideology is produced for us without thinking about it. The result is that the debate is not about how to make people's lives better, but which ideology sounds better to us. The corporations that gin up ideologies for us are just doing disaster capitalism and profiting from our fears. They have interposed themselves between government and the people and are profiting from the democratic process.

I'm not a member of the NRA myself, but I don't have a problem with any liberal who is. There are only two ways to communicate with our government: through the voting booth or the bank. And the bank works better. The reality is that sometimes people have to defend themselves and the best way to do that is with a gun. If the only organization that defends the right of self defense happens to be rife with right wing ideologues and nuts, well, then the left needs to offer something other than vapid rhetoric and arrogant bigotry.

[rrneck]

46. Also...

Regarding the political message that gets transmitted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x370200

[Starboard Tack]

49. A very thoughtful and well reasoned post

However, these are extreme reactions on both sides. You're saying permits e we run the risk of losing swing voters because they are buying the RW propaganda. Our job, surely, is to reassure them that this is not part of our platform. That doesn't mean we can't expose the BS surrounding the NRA and others who profit from the peddling of fear. There's a good reason that very few CCW holders ever fire their guns at others, as very few police officers do. They don't need to carry them. As someone here likes to point out, the chances are 5 times less than being struck by lightning. Well, if you were to carry an umbrella in southern California between May and October, you would be considered a little off kilter and that's in SoCal where nutters abound. But it has been known to rain there in July, usually for about 5 minutes. So then you just dry off in the sun, instead of running off trying to find an umbrella.

Funny, your bio in that post could have been mine.

[PavePusher]

51. "There's a good reason that very few CCW holders ever fire their guns at others..."

Studies seem to indicate that the weapon is presented or merely indicated far more often than shots are actually fired.

Does this mean the gun had no effect? I certainly don't think so.

edit: for spelling

[Starboard Tack]

52. Could've achieved the same result with a fake gun

Fact is if you point a gun at someone you take a huge risk. Firstly, it constitutes assault with a deadly weapon. Another CCW holder or off duty cop may spot you, misunderstand the situation and take you out. Big oops there. I think you're smart not to carry. The temptation to pull it out can be too great sometimes.

[PavePusher]

53. Legal carriers seem to have a pretty good track record so far.

By the way, using a fake gun in "self defense" is known as 'A Very Bad Idea(tm)' for a lot of different reasons. I do not recommend it.

And the data on legal defensive action being misinterpreted by police or other CCW's seems to be thin at best.

[Starboard Tack]

55. I agree using a fake gun is a bad idea

almost as bad as using a real one. I don't live my life by data and neither, it seems, does anyone who carries.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Ah, the 'friendly-fire' canard. Haven't seen that one in a couple of months

Another CCW holder or off duty cop may spot you, misunderstand the situation and take you out. Big oops there.

As usual when it appears, the best reply is: Cite to evidence, if you please. Since CCW has been around for several decades,

there should be no lack of examples if you are correct.

[Starboard Tack]

62. How many examples do you need?

Here's one for starters

White cop shoots black cop in New York 'friendly fire' tragedy

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1189552/White-cop-shoots-black-cop-New-York-friendly-tragedy.html#ixzz1Ihiy1rD0


An off-duty policeman was killed by a fellow officer last night in a horrifying case of mistaken identity.

Now New York police have launched a race investigation after Omar J Edwards, 25, died last night as he chased someone he found rummaging through his car.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Edwards, who was a married father of two, had just gotten off work at about 10.30pm when he spotted a man going through his vehicle.

[Starboard Tack]

63. And here is another perfect example of where a tazer would have been better

Cop shoots cop on L.I.: Deranged punk shot dead before friendly fire fells officer
BY CLARE TRAPASSO, ALISON GENDAR AND JOE KEMP
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Sunday, March 13, 2011

A Long Island cop was shot in the face and killed by an MTA officer after a knife-wielding self-proclaimed satanist lunged at police and was gunned down in his home Saturday, sources said.

The tragic events unfolded after Nassau County police got a call for a wild-eyed man walking the streets in Massapequa Park armed with a blade and slashing cars shortly after 8 p.m., authorities and witnesses said.

"He was dragging about an 8-inch chef knife across the windows of two cars," said 12-year-old Brian Mullins. "He had murderous-looking eyes staring me down. I thought he was staring into my soul."

Anthony DiGeronimo - who witnesses said was wearing all black with a white mask covered in metal chains - then took to Front St., where he continued to rattle the neighborhood, sources said.

[rrneck]

64. My crystal ball is in the shop.

If I only have one chance to save my life a gun is the best choice.

[Starboard Tack]

66. So why do you choose not to carry?

[rrneck]

69. My risk assesment doesn't indicate it.

I'm lucky enough to live in a low crime area.
Heck, I've seen more naked people on the street than people with guns.

But I can't make a "legislative risk assessment " for others.

[Starboard Tack]

73. I agree 100%

Though I'm sure others would argue that lightning can strike anywhere. It's really all about common sense and reality testing.
But I do think that communities have the right to be gun free or have gun free zones. We have drug free, alcohol free, smoke free and vehicle free and even noise free and clothes free. What's the problem with that?

[rrneck]

75. When is the last time someone used

drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes to defend themselves against assault? And of course, you can take cigarettes into a no smoking zone as long as you don't light up. The same for drugs and alcohol if done with care. Gun free zones are just fine as long as the owner of the property can guarantee it is actually a gun free zone. The problem is that anybody willing to initiate an unprovoked shooting isn't likely to be dissuaded by a sign at the door.

[Starboard Tack]

77. When I say gun free zone I'm thinking a whole town or even state

where guns would be restricted similarly to the UK, where it works very effectively.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Chicago and DC tried that. Didn't work. Very high crime rate.

El Paso, TX which has more guns than people had only three murders in 2010. However, you post that you desire UK style gun control firmly establishes you as a gun-banner.

[Starboard Tack]

80. That's your opinion. I'm looking for solutions, not promoting an agenda.

I am not in favor of banning guns, just the carrying of them in public. You sell the self defense argument. I'm not buying it. I think most people who support your argument are buying into an extremely unhealthy mindset. El Paso argument is totally bogus. Take away those guns tomorrow and nothing would change. Take away the border and everything would change.

[rrneck]

83. Actually

you are in favor of banning guns. The combination of restricting them only to homes bans them from the vast majority of people's daily activities, not to mention your advocacy of regional bans.

[Starboard Tack]

89. Wrong. I think guns should not be banned for hunting or

defense of the home. Carrying them around in town is totally ridiculous. You can call it banning, I call it being responsible. I'm not suggesting any specific legislation. I'm appealing to common sense and civility. If you don't think that the proliferation of firearms in this society is problematic, then you aren't looking for a solution. Some want draconian laws banning all guns, pretty much UK style. I lean toward that solution unless someone comes up with something better. I think hunters and rural dwellers should have access to long guns. I don't see much legitimacy in owning a handgun.
Is that clear enough. I don't have the answers. Many here seem to think they have the answers, but they haven't convinced me yet.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. What you have just described is a draconian gun ban.

Therefore, you do desire to ban guns, with a few minor exceptions.

[Starboard Tack]

92. I think hunters and others who want to protect their homes

would disagree with you describing them as minor exceptions. I think they probably constitute the majority of legitimate gun owners. If you have another solution that would reduce gun deaths, feel free to share.

[GreenStormCloud]

94. Yet you want to ban handguns and say that you aren't a gun banner.

I believe from other posts that you support a new Assault Weapons Ban too.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Absolutely. Ban assault weapons.

Regarding handguns, I'm not convinced either way. Does that make me a gun banner?
Are you a gun lover?

[rrneck]

99. define "assault weapon".

[Starboard Tack]

106. Assault rifle to be more precise

[oneshooter]

113. Like the M1Garand? 1903a4? Krag carbine? Madson rifle? Johnson rifle? M1 Carbine? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

116. Boy, you sure do love your guns, don't you?

[oneshooter]

132. They are a part of history. Please answer the question posted. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

134. Yes sir! Are they assault rifles?

If so then you know my answer. I am a gun owner, not a gun lover. I believe that owning a gun has some validity in this world. I believe that loving guns is beyond bizarre and probably unhealthy. I can appreciate and admire the engineering, design and efficiency of guns, but their inherent purpose is far from admirable.

[oneshooter]

138. You are the one preaching about banning them. How are you going

to ban something that you are so ignorant of that you don't even know what they are? That is the hight of arrogance and stupidity

If you are going to call for a ban of something, anything it would behoove you to put at least a little research into it.

Lest you sound like a total fool.

Look them up, use a little sweat to learn.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

142. I don't care to research gun history any more than I want to research

the history of pornography. If you don't know what an assault rifle is then I suggest you google it. I have no problem looking like a fool in your eyes. And I don't preach. I'm not selling anything except common sense.

Noneshooter
Unarmed and Not Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

146. I can pretty much guarantee he knows.

The point is that it's useless to attempt intelligent discussion when you don't know what you're talking about - and don't care to learn. Your mind appears to be made up and you're asking us to validate your beliefs. Good luck with that.

[Starboard Tack]

148. I have no interest in discussing gun porn with this guy

I have tried to have intelligent discussion with him in the past. Not possible. I'm never gonna' get him to even peek outside his box. My mind is not closed on all gun issues. You know this from our conversations. Most of the time you give me food for thought. I don't really understand why you support someone who is so over the top and certainly does not serve your cause. I used to go hunting quite a bit, but I never took a rabid dog with me.

[rrneck]

149. Frequently

the difficulty in dealing with the gun issue in this country is that people don't know one gun from another. The controversy surrounding the Assault Weapons Ban is a prime example of this and the reason you will be quickly challenged to define what you think an "assault weapon" is as opposed to an "assault rifle". The AWB was very poor piece of legislation that actually dramatically increased the popularity of "military style" rifles and did nothing to reduce crime. That law was designed to, among other things, exploit the general public's lack of knowledge of firearms. It also cost a lot of Democratic legislators their jobs.

If you want to be taken seriously I suggest some research. You don't have to like it, but you would gain credibility by doing it.

Try this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=399461
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler<6> to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently re-named Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:<7><8><9>

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine.
* And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (984 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines. However, in this case, the M249 SAW has the ability for both being fed by belt or detachable box magazine.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."<10>
Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons

The term assault weapon is a United States political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Primary pistol grip
* Forward grip
* Threaded barrel (for a Suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
* Barrel shroud

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.

[Starboard Tack]

152. I already researched this. That's why I said assault rifle.

Bottom line, I would prefer civilian ownership restricted to shotguns (max. 2 barrels), no pumps. Rifles with no auto and 10 round max.. I think that's being reasonable. No outright ban on guns. Handguns - still open on that, but it really does look like it's getting out of control, especially the CCW madness.

[rrneck]

153. Well,

to be considered madness you would need to provide some actual evidence that CCW causes crime to rise.

How is being shot with a double barrel shotgun better than with a pump? It's a distinction without a difference. If you researched the subject you would find that every restriction enacted on civilian firearms has been circumvented by technological or tactical changes before the ink was dry. That's because such fine distinctions cannot be enforced on technology that is over one hundred years old and easily reproduced in somebody's garage. Restrictions on firearm designed has gone as far as it can go with the distinction between discriminate and indiscriminate weapons. Anything more is a waste of money and, more importantly, political capital.

[Starboard Tack]

160. For me to consider something madness does not require evidence

of any crime. It's an assessment made by me. An opinion. Where did I state a preference as to being shot? Shotguns are for hunting and/or self defense. 2 barrels is plenty for either. If gun rights are based on 200 year old paper then why shouldn't the guns be of similar vintage, at least in design?

[rrneck]

161. You need evidence for

an informed opinion. Again, do the research.

If nothing else read through a few months back in this forum and save us all a lot of time.

[Starboard Tack]

169. First of all this isn't a court. I don't need evidence.

Neither is it a classroom where you get to be teacher and set my homework assignments. I am exercising my rights under the rules of DU to have a discussion and I have less than zero interest in saving you time. On the contrary, the longer I can keep any toters off the streets, the more comfortable the rest of us will feel. Thank you for your patience and understanding. I'm not your enemy, just a distraction.

[rrneck]

170. This is the court of public opinion.

If you want to convince anybody of anything you have to produce empirical evidence or at least sound reasoning. So far you have done neither.

To date you have churned through just about every gun control canard out there. I haven't been here that long and you have presented nothing new to me. Imagine the patience shown you by gun owners who have been posting here for years.

The process is almost always the same. First comes the second amendment, then comparisons with other countries, then statistics, and finally expressions of personal preference as if they are moral imperatives. And it always leads to the same place: Produce a firearm free self defense solution as a remedy for your legislative agenda. Until you do that or admit you don't have one this conversation will go nowhere.

There are answers to be found, but until we get past the initial desire to legislate personal preference we will never be able to discuss them.

[Starboard Tack]

172. I have no interest in convincing anybody of anything.

I'm here to ask questions and express my own thoughts. I came here with an open mind. I had no agenda or strong thoughts either way on guns. Then I started monitoring this forum and observed the rote-spiel from both sides. My conclusion is that most toters tend to be back slapping members of the choir and most banners tend to feel bullied and frustrated and eventually go away. So, I find little intelligent discussion and each side tends to reinforce the hysteria of the other. Not too many voices of reason around here. One that seemed to be reasonable turned out to be a troll. Very disappointing.
You, on the other hand, have made some good arguments, at times, that have given me much food for thought, but then you come back with stuff straight from the NRA gospel.
You ask for solutions. Firstly, we need to identify the problems. I equate gun toters with people who take antibiotics for anything and everything. Useless against viruses and deadly to all bacteria, good and bad. More guns is NOT the answer and the more I read in this forum, the less I buy the self-defense motive. The exception doesn't prove the rule.
So, all you have succeeded in doing is nudge me more and more towards supporting draconian bans against toting.
I don't worry about Obama. He'll be re-elected, thanks mainly to the T-baggers.

[rrneck]

173. Well, if you're not here to conbince anyone of anything

but here to learn you've been handed a ton of information to work with. You are free to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

Try to understand the population of people you're talking to here. The vast majority are machinists, engineers, military, LEO, tradesmen, and other assorted left brain thinkers. You're gonna get a lot of facts and figures and demands for same. And those demands are going to come from people who care passionately about the subject and have defended it in a pretty hostile environment.

The problem isn't hard to define. It's us! Before we used guns it was swords. Before swords we used rocks. We are the common denominator of brutality.

All we have to do is figure out how to make ourselves better in a world that's constantly changing under our feet. That's why the subject interests me. I care about justice and we will never find it without rooting out our own prejudice and fear; failings that show up in the most unlikely of places.

By the way, I'm not a firearms enthusiast at all. I might get to the range once in a great while and I actually disagree with proponents of both sides of the issue about equally. The difference is that it usually only takes a sentence or two for the antis.

[oneshooter]

155. So you wold remain in your box, ignorant of what you speak of, and too blind to realize it. n/t

[oneshooter]

154. So you wish to remain ignorant of what you speak of. n/t

[rrneck]

123. Vanishingly rare due to regulation. Never used in crime. nt

[oneshooter]

100. Including those used by LE? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

107. LE? Excuse my ignorance

[oneshooter]

109. Law Enforcement, aka the Cops. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

117. Yes. Works very well in the UK

[GreenStormCloud]

102. What danger to the public is posed by the following:

Bayonet lug.
Flash suppressor.
Ergonomic grip.
Adjustable stock.

And in your above post you questioned the legitimacy of private ownership of handguns. Those are the most commonly used guns for home and self-defense. Long guns can be clumsy to use indoors and you can get into a grappling match with the baddie if you are having to search your house with a long gun.

[Starboard Tack]

108. No danger until you attach them to a gun and go into town

Then you become a "potential danger". Let's say potentially more dangerous than most everyone else. Keep it at home and wait for the apocalypse. I don't care. I'd just prefer not to see it. Know what I mean. If you have to keep a handgun in the house, so be it. I personally don't want to take that right away. I want to restrict only where you can go when armed. I would like to see gun free zones voted on by the residents of those zones. Each zone or city would establish it's own restrictions. You got a better idea?

[oneshooter]

110. Got to stop all of that drive by bayoneting!!! The horror!!!! n/t

[Starboard Tack]

118. Keep the bayonet. Toss the gun

[GreenStormCloud]

112. Statistics show that CCWers are super safe.

What's your worry?

Gun free zones aren't gun free. Criminals will readily ignore your signs. Are you so naive as to believe that a criminal, who by definition is a law-breaker will obey your signs? All you will succeed in doing is to disarm the law-abiding. I am sure that criminals appreciate your efforts to provide them with easy victims.

The AB banned some guns on cosmetics, not on functionality. The gun manufactures simply removed the offending cosmetics and continuted to market the same guns. In other cases the AWB ganned a gun by name so the maker made a tiny change, then changed the name of the gun, and kept on legally selling it. The AWB was one of the stupidest, most ineffective pieces of legislation every produced by congress.

You say that you don't want to take away my right to own a handgun, yet a few post above you want to see a UK type of gun-control here. They ban private ownership of handguns. So what do you really support? There are plenty of posts that you have made that show support for some pretty extreme gun control measures and outright bans.

[Starboard Tack]

119. I would definitely like to see UK style gun legislation here

OK are you satisfied now? Is that clear?
Now, having said that, I am also a realist. The rural nature of much of this country changes the equation. So, as I have said many times, I have no problem with owning shotguns and hunting rifles, both of which I would restrict in terms of capacity. Regarding handguns I'm somewhat ambivalent, but am leaning more and more towards a ban, mainly because of what I have been reading in this forum. The fervor of the pro-gunners is truly disturbing. I never had a problem with handguns in the past, but all this concealed carry nonsense and taking them to school is so over the top. I think you're helping arms peddlers sell a lot of guns, but you're alienating a huge segment of the population and I think it will backfire on you. Pardon the pun.
But, personally, I don't really care. It's just a fun conversation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. Am I reading you correctly in thinking you want handguns banned because they are popular?

Regarding handguns I'm somewhat ambivalent, but am leaning more and more towards a ban, mainly because of what I have been reading in this forum. The fervor of the pro-gunners is truly disturbing. I never had a problem with handguns in the past, but all this concealed carry nonsense and taking them to school is so over the top.

If you could show the expanding practice of concealed handgun carriage is harmful, you might have had a point- but you can't,

as (so far) the opposite has been the case. And since that is so, I'd have to place you in the 'moral harm' school of gun control...

[Starboard Tack]

122. It's your kind of attitude that nudges me closer towards

supporting a ban on handguns. You actually feel that carrying concealed weapons is beneficial to society. I find it devolutionary, at the very least. Your reasoning is fallacious IMO. Many toters seem to have learned the NRA spiel by rote. Very gullible. Very naive. Very ovine. Very sad.

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. I misspoke- I should have said the increased # of people carrying concealed weapons is not harmful.

A positive good? Maybe, maybe not. I will claim the practice is not actively harmful, and that's quite good enough in what

is alleged to be a free society. I implied you were equivalent with another poster who is adamant that carriage of concealed weapons

is harmful to society, and I do apologize for that.


(BTW, that other poster never does come out and say exactly why the practice is harmful to society...)



Certainly the violent crime and murder rates in the US have decreased at the same time the number of guns and the number of

people with concealed weapons permits have increased by leaps and bounds. Absent any demonstrable harm, I can't see any objection.

[Starboard Tack]

131. I don't see how an increase in CCW can be a positive good

for society as a whole. I find that it reinforces negative attitudes and encourages simplistic problem solving. The "demonstrable harm" can be seen in the very fact that more people feel that they can improve their lives by walking around with killing tools strapped to their bodies. I fail to see anything positive or progressive about that. In fact, I see it as an indicator of a failing society. I think we're better than that.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. Defense is a positive good.

Those of us with CCWs have, over the past 25 years, demonstrated a better safety record than either the general population or of the police. Further we have a record of more lives saved by defense than lost by illegal shooting by CCWers. The greater number of lives saved by CCW is a net positive good.

[Starboard Tack]

140. You can try to justify your anti social behavior all day long

I'm not buying it. Sorry. Carrying a gun around in public is about as positive as laying land mines.

[friendly_iconoclast]

143. Too bad the Harry J. Anslinger approach towards guns isn't working anymore.

"Reefer Madness" was used as a template for gun control politics. It worked for quite a while, but organization, empirical evidence,

and other factors are winning out.


Seems like people prefer statistics to feelings (at least in this arena). Those that cannot adjust are doomed to irrelevance.

[Starboard Tack]

144. OK let's play statistics US 30,896 beats UK 42

The US has 5x the population so adjusted for that UK scores 208
Let's do some simple math. 30,896 divided by 42 = 735.619

Yeah, that's real Reefer Madness shit goin' on there. Great analogy.


In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006)

Now the UK for 2008
Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland.

Your move

[rrneck]

147. Less guns equals less gun crime.

Of course, less trebuchets equal less trebuchet crime too.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
Crime Statistics > Assaults (per capita) (most recent) by country
# 6 United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people

[Starboard Tack]

150. Well I gotta tell ya, I'd rather be assaulted in the UK

than shot to death in the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
#4 United States: 9,369
#39 United Kingdom: 14

I would wager that more people report assaults in Britain than the US. The bar is very low there for assault. Bottom line - the 2 countries have varying definition of what constitutes an assault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

Sorry, but it's a no contest. We can still learn a lot from them, especially in terms of evolution since the revolution. Why are we still stuck in the 18th century on this issue?

[rrneck]

151. Let's see now

what else happened in the 18th century... Oh yeah! The American Revolution! You know, the bill of rights and the constitution and all that.

Assault rates (according to NationMaster) between the US and the UK are so close any difference is swallowed up by a host of factors. It's really useless to compare the two but it's disingenuous to declare that a country that bans guns is somehow more civilized when they have fewer gun deaths. That proves nothing of the sort.

The most frequent cause of bankruptcy in this country is due to medical expenses. You don't have to die to be ruined. One solid punch from a criminal and you could lose everything. Firearms aren't just for defense against murder even if you could somehow divine your assailants intent. They are designed for defense against assault, which includes severe bodily harm.

Be that as it may, you are free to prefer one over the other. You have no right to make that call for anyone else unless you can take responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

[beevul]

164. Always including suicides, you antis.

Who owns YOUR life?

If your answer is that your life belongs to you and nobody else, why do you not view the lives of others in the same light?


A tad hypocritical, perhaps?

[GreenStormCloud]

162. We have facts on our side. All you have is emotion. N/T

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. Feel free to attempt to ban what you believe is harming society.

Of course, you'll have to compete for attention with the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the American Family Association,

and the sorts of grandstanding wowsers that try to pass "saggy pants" laws. Maybe you can pick up some pointers from them....

[Starboard Tack]

171. I won't be banning anything. Society tends to react eventually

when things get out of hand. Reason usually prevails eventually. I have no dog in this fight. This is a fun, intellectual exercise to me. I find it fascinating and usually the most interesting forum here. I've always been interested in social anomalies. I enjoy a good discussion. Something I don't find by joining the chorus, any chorus.
I went through a very interesting and somewhat hair raising tsunami experience last month which taught me a great deal about preparedness and extremism and perceptions. Many people have made the comment that, if the US were to suffer what Japan is going through, there would be chaos. Looting, murder and mayhem. They may be right. I'm not sure. But we definitely have a way to go in terms of getting over ourselves. As a nation, I guess we're still very adolescent.

[gejohnston]

156. You are assuming

that dueling is going to make a comeback or something? Sounds like it. Hardly.

[Euromutt]

175. Well, it's not like your attitude is particularly persuasive

What you've presented are your various opinions, without a scrap of evidence to support them. You're even more than happy to remain willfully ignorant on the topic ("I don't need evidence"). Ergo, said opinions are entirely subjective, and really seem to be based exclusively on your personal dislike of firearms and the people who (would) own them, protestations on your part of not having an agenda and approaching the issue with an open mind notwithstanding. Here's some advice: if you want people to actually believe you when you say you don't have an agenda, don't say stuff like "the longer I can keep any toters off the streets, the more comfortable the rest of us will feel" (aside: "toters"? What are you, Hoyt's less doltish sock puppet?) and if you want people to believe you don't already have your mind made up, don't say you find the idea of private citizens carrying firearms in public "devolutionary, at the very least."

Very gullible. Very naive.

"Gullible" and "naive" are synonyms. Above quote brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

Very ovine.

If you expected your assertion that we resemble sheep because we aren't willing to blindly go along with you and let your assertion go unchallenged to be met with anything other than derisive snorts at your hypocrisy, you're sorely mistaken.

Very sad.

And when all fails, resort to insultingly patronizing your interlocutors. Because it's clearly their failing that they won't come round to your opinion, even though you couldn't be arsed to argue for it coherently. Just dismiss those who disagree with you as being a bunch of sheep parroting the NRA line (if you'll pardon the mixing of animal metaphors), and you can keep your self-image intact. And for Heaven's sake, do not for a moment allow the idea that maybe you're the one who needs to revise his opinions enter your head!

[rrneck]

95. Of course you don't have the answers.

That's the problem. Nobody does. But if you tell people that they cannot carry a handgun on 99.9999999999999% of the real estate in this country you just banned them. Telling people where they can and cannot carry a gun assumes specific legislation. And you are advocating that legislation based on some vague ideology related to civilized behavior. That is exactly how bad laws get made.

Unless you can produce a self defense solution that does not involve a handgun you have no right to question the solution employed by others. Disarming people without offering them a remedy is the height of irresponsibility.

Of course the proliferation of firearms is problematic. You are not offering a proper solution. Taking weapons away from people does not make them civilized. It just makes them defenseless.

The only solution is to find a way for people to defend themselves without a handgun if you want all the handguns to go away. Until you produce that solution we will continue to point out the contradictions in your position.

[rl6214]

84. The guns that are in Juarez Mexico could easily flow into El Paso

just as easily as the Mexican nationals and the drugs that flow into El Paso, border or no border. Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world yet has the highest murder rates in the world. The citizens of Juarez are not armed and the street thugs and drug cartels know that. One of my employees is moving from Juarez to El Paso because he cannot protect his family from the weekly shakedowns they get for protection money.

[Starboard Tack]

88. And your solution for Juarez would be what?

Arm the citizenry?

[GreenStormCloud]

90. Yes. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

93. You're a real problem solver, aren't you?

Nothing draconian about your solutions is there?

[GreenStormCloud]

101. Freedom is not draconian. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

104. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose!

I don't know what I proposed that is in any way Draconian. I suppose there's nothing Draconian about using a gun as a social "equalizer"?
You need to understand that the whole world doesn't see that as socially appropriate.

[GreenStormCloud]

87. You advocate a UK style gun control.

That is a ban. Therefore you are a gun-banner.

[rrneck]

82. It works so well

there was talk of restricting kitchen utinsels like guns. Seems they have a problem with knives now. In a country with the highest per capita number of surveillance cameras on the planet I believe.

Bans in DC and Chicago were a miserable failure.

[Starboard Tack]

96. Now you're losing credibility.

"there was talk of" is not like you. Neither is "seems they have a problem". "miserable failure"?
And what on earth do surveillance cameras have to do with anything?
You usually present coherent arguments, like 30,000 gun deaths a year in the land of the free versus 200 in the violent UK is justifiable.
You know why they have more knife killings per capita in the UK? Because they don't have access to guns. Amazing how backward they are. No wonder they lost the empire.

[rrneck]

98. "I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold."

Anthony hopkins in Lion in Winter.

Sorry I can't run down links on a phone. But you can google your way to whatever information I referred to pretty quickly if you really wanted.

Like I said taking away guns does not make people civilized any more than giving them guns makes them barbaric. To make that case you need to find a causal link between the object and the behavior. I don't think it's possible.

[Starboard Tack]

105. Once again I agree with you totally

I would like "we, the people" to be able to decide if our communities are to be gun free or not, with specified exceptions,, especially in terms of carrying, open or concealed. This, I believe would be better done by popular referendum or a ballot measure, to free ourselves of the lobbyist tainted politicians. Most people I know find guns objectionable by their very nature. I ask everyone I meet what they think about guns. So far, Ive met 3 people out of 200+ who actually owned weapons and went out to the desert to shoot. What I'm trying to say is, it would be interesting to see the real numbers.

[GreenStormCloud]

114. You must really hate the constitution.

The constitution restricts the powers of a majority of the voters least they trample upon the rights of others.

[Starboard Tack]

115. How do you manage to be wrong every time?

At least you're consistent. The Constitution is great, especially it's amendability, which is important so as to keep it up to date with social mores. What does disturb me is that gun lovers people like to interpret 2A in such grandiose ways as to undermine it's original intent, which of course was to protect individuals from armed bullies. Funny how roles get reversed, isn't it?

[rrneck]

124. You may not realize it

but it appears you just want to ban guns wherever you are. You don't like handguns at all and question any reason for their existence, you don't want anyone carrying a gun in any area with an as yet unspecified population density, you report the results of what is probably a personal push poll to support your confirmation bias, and you advocate a UK style gun ban, and when called on it advocate voter referendums at the local level which tells me a lot about those 200 people you polled.

A typical handgun weighs about two pounds. Handguns are designed to be portable. People are mobile. They move around a lot. More now than any other time in history. If you had it your way nobody would be able to tell where they can carry a gun and where they could not. You would create a minefield of criminal liability requiring people who need to carry a firearm to constantly deal with a patchwork of laws that will only work for people who don't break the law. Like I said, vague laws enforced capriciously are stock and trade for totalitarian regimes. You have confused the terms citizen with the term consumer. Laws aren't put on the books for your personal comfort. If you think people shouldn't carry guns then you need to set about finding a solution for self defense not involving a gun. Your attitude is a formula for bad government.

I've got news for you. Nobody cares what you do or do not want to see in your daily travels. Especially when your environmental aesthetics might get them killed. Nobody owes you a bubble of good karma and emotional reassurance at their expense. It's that simple.

You are hitting all the numbers in this thread. Here's what I have seen just off the top of my head.

Text in bold is yours from this thread.

Then you become a "potential danger".
#1.
What some anti RKBA say: "People who commit crimes with guns are law abiding citizens until they're not."

What most people hear: I don't care about you. You are just a potential criminal as far as I am concerned. You are unstable and your instability is exacerbated because of that gun. You are untrustworthy even though I have never met you and will never know you personally. I am afraid of you.

Republican spin opportunity: Elitist wimpy oblivious liberals.

If I felt any need to carry, I would move.
#3.
What some anti RKBA say: "Just move."

What most people hear: I don't care about you. I'm perfectly happy to abandon your ass and move to some comfortable gated suburb the minute the neighborhood starts to go downhill. What's your problem you can't afford to simply change the circumstances of your life whenever you feel like it?

Republican spin opportunity: Elitist rich oblivious callous judgmental liberals.

You need to understand that the whole world doesn't see that as socially appropriate.
#4.
What some anti RKBA say: "Wearing a gun in public is tacky."

What most people hear: I don't care about you. My need to be surrounded by people like me is much more important than your personal safety.

Republican spin opportunity: Bigoted vain oblivious callous liberals.

I'd just prefer not to see it.
#5.
What some anti RKBA say: "I shouldn't have to look at guns in public."

What most people hear: I don't care about you. My perception of the world around me is more important than your personal safety.

Republican spin opportunity: Vain oblivious callous liberals.

Keep it at home and wait for the apocalypse.
#6.
What some anti RKBA say: "You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun in your car if it is parked in your employers parking lot."

What most people hear: I don't care about you. I own stock in the corporation you work for and I don't want anybody threatening my unearned income because the workers might get "uppity". My first concern is for management and I don't care what kind of neighborhood you have to drive through to work third shift in the wrong part of town. I never go there anyway.

Republican spin opportunity: Rich elitist bourgeoisie liberals.

What you're saying is that we should cave in to a right wing, fear mongering agenda, increasing their corporate profits and inflaming those who see through the propaganda.

That doesn't mean we can't expose the BS surrounding the NRA and others who profit from the peddling of fear.
#8.
What some anti RKBA say: "You are deluded by the NRA."

What most people hear: I don't care about you. You are stupid enough to believe what some lobbyist group tells you without giving it any consideration at all.

Republican spin opportunity: Elitist egghead arrogant academic liberals.

I think most people who support your argument are buying into an extremely unhealthy mindset.

Boy, you sure do love your guns, don't you?
#13.
What some anti RKBA say: "People who want to carry guns should have a psychiatric evaluation."

What most people hear: I don't care about you or due process. I am afraid of you for no reason other than because you may not think like me and I'm willing to use the power of the state to feel safer regardless of some silly notion about probable cause.

Republican spin opportunity: Big government elitist wimpy liberals.

I don't see much legitimacy in owning a handgun.
#16.
What some anti RKBA say: "Who really needs extended capacity magazines/ black rifles/ personal carry."

What most people hear: I don't care about you. I know more about what you need than you do even though I have no idea who you are or the circumstances of your life, and I certainly have no knowledge about firearms beyond what some talking head told me. My ideology is more important than you.

Republican spin opportunity: Elitist arrogant academic egghead ignorant liberals.

Guns are a fact of life in this country and in this world, so are drugs and religion. I find all three of them unnecessary and easy to avoid.

I am not in favor of banning guns, just the carrying of them in public.
#17.
What some anti RKBA say: "Why do you need a gun to go to Starbucks?"

What most people hear: I don't care about you. I never leave the upscale part of town and spend most of my time drinking overpriced coffee.

Republican spin opportunity: Elitist latte sipping liberals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x370200

[Starboard Tack]

65. Want more?

Officer cleared by Phoenix police board in homeowner shooting

54 comments by Michael Ferraresi - Sept. 26, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

A Phoenix police officer who mistakenly shot an armed homeowner during a search for an intruder was cleared of wrongdoing this week by a committee that reviews such shootings.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/09/25/20090925phxarambula0925.html#ixzz1IhtjskuM

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Your first 2 examples are cops shot by other cops, and the 3rd was shot inside his own home....

...with no indication that he was a CCW holder.

Thanks for playing, and be sure to try again next time!

[gejohnston]

157. At the very least

the 911 operator should go down for this one. So you are saying that it would have been better if the cops have showed up with the chalk and homicide detectives? Home invaders are not friendly pick pockets.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Trying again. Thank you for your patience

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x180124

[Starboard Tack]

70. Oops!

Erik B. Scott, a 1994 U.S. Military Academy at West Point graduate, was shot and killed by three Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) officers in front of the Summerlin Costco store on 10 July 2010. The shooting is still under investigation, but here are the basic facts, based on numerous eyewitness reports:


Erik was carrying a legally registered concealed firearm, while he and his girlfriend were shopping at Costco. He also had a concealed carry permit in his wallet, issued by the same Metro department that killed him.


When Erik squatted on the floor to verify that three metal water bottles would fit into a soft-sided, zip-up cooler, a Costco employee saw the weapon. Erik's shirt had lifted up, revealing an inside-the-belt holstered pistol tucked into the back of his jeans. A civil interchange ensued, and the employee informed Erik of Costco's policy that guns were not allowed inside company stores -- although there are no signs to that effect posted outside or inside the facility. Erik calmly responded that his gun was legal and that he had a concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit on his person. Like many other Boston Scientific pacemaker sales reps, Erik carried a concealed weapon for personal protection, because reps are required to enter dangerous areas of the city at all hours of the day and night to serve patients fitted with cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators. Contrary to wildly erroneous news reports, we don't believe Erik had a second gun on his person.


The Costco employee apparently reported to the store's manager that Erik was carrying a gun. The manager, in turn, informed a young, plainclothes security person, who subsequently placed a 911 call to the police. The contents of that 911 call have not been released, but Northwest Metro cops rushed to the store in overwhelming force. Perhaps as many as 15 police cruisers, a helicopter, an incident-command team and an ambulance were dispatched.


Costco managers announced via the PA system that the store was being evacuated. Unaware that the evacuation had anything to do with him, Erik and his girlfriend walked out with the crowd, passing three Metro officers waiting at the entrance. The Costco undercover security guard pointed to Erik, and the cops started yelling at Erik to stop and turn around.


Erik turned to find three officers facing him, guns drawn, and all three shouting different commands: "Get on the ground!" "Drop your weapon!" and "Keep your hands up!" Erik held his hands up, spoke calmly, told them he DID have a concealed firearm and a legal CCW and was an ex-Army officer. His girlfriend was screaming about Erik being a West Point grad, former Army officer, etc. Erik leaned to his left, hands still up, to expose the pistol inside his belt, and repeated, "I am disarming; I am disarming..." Witnesses say he started to lower his right hand, palm OUT, as if intending to remove holster and gun together — but never got the hand below his shoulder, when one of the cops (William Mosher, who had committed a fatal shooting in 2006) shot Erik in the chest with a .45-caliber weapon. Erik dropped to his knees, clearly in shock, his face a picture of disbelief. He was shot a second time and collapsed. The rest is ugly. The three officers unloaded again, firing a total of seven hollow-point rounds. At least five, possibly six, hit Erik in the back, after he was on the ground and dying.


The cops roughly handcuffed Erik's hands behind his back, and, in the words of an eyewitness, "tossed him onto a gurney a sack of potatoes."


Costco had numerous security cameras inside the store and at least four trained on the entrance portico, where the shooting took place. Metro officers immediately seized the surveillance-camera video data (computer hard disks), including backup drives. Within hours, Metro leaked "news" that the video may be "unusable," and that the hard drives had been sent to a forensics lab in Los Angeles. More than six weeks later, only Metro personnel have seen the video. Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, the Metro chief, continues to say that "there's probably no usable video" of events inside the store or of Erik's fatal shooting. He also has refused to release the 911 audio tape, even though Metro normally releases those 911 call tapes to the media within days.


There's been considerable media coverage of Erik's shooting, and many of the news reports are available on Las Vegas TV station and Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper websites. Erik's family and friends have done numerous interviews, as we search for the truth about Erik's slaying. Many people think one of our more-effective interviews was on Channel 8/KLAS TV with George Knapp of the "I-Team." (I-Team: Father of Man Shot by Police at Costco Speaks - KLAS-TV Channel 8 News Las Vegas)


A Clark County Coroner's Inquest Hearing is scheduled for 22-23 September in Las Vegas. Considered to be unique in the U.S., this particular inquest process is heavily biased in favor of law enforcement personnel. A Las Vegas reporter referred to it as "police investigating police and reporting to police." In 34 years of inquests into more than 190 officer-involved shootings, only one officer has been found at fault — and he was never prosecuted.


Interested parties can follow developments in this case, as well as an "E-Team" weblog featuring commentary and insights, at: In Memory of Erik B. Scott 1972-2010

William B. Scott
Erik's Father

*Note that this information was not created by USMA Class of 1994. All information was provided by the Scott Family in order to keep Erik's friends and classmates informed.*

[gejohnston]

158. and the point?

Other than proving the point that cops are more likely to shoot an innocent than a CCW holder. It also shows that cops are held to a lower standard.

[gejohnston]

159. and the point?

Other than proving the point that cops are more likely to shoot an innocent than a CCW holder. It also shows that cops are held to a lower standard.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

85. what's the point to this post?

[Starboard Tack]

72. I'm sure you're familiar with the following.

Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit
holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the
suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three
law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.
Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit
holders have slain at least 43 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the
suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional
six private citizens were injured in these incidents.
In six of the 30 incidents (20 percent), the conce

[rrneck]

76. Two years of statistics

in a country of over three hundred million people.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Exactly. Pretty sad, especially for those families.

Why did we get so bent out of shape about 9/11? More people die on the roads every month.

[rrneck]

81. It's one thing to have an accident.

It's another to be attacked. That's why people take self defense so seriously.

[rl6214]

86. Not at all familiar with this

can you post a cite please?

[oneshooter]

111. I believe that he is quoting either the VPC or the Brady Bunch. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. I am. I'd point out that is from a population of 5-8 million CCW holders

Which would indicate that as a group, US CCW permit holders are less likely to murder someone than the residents of the

European Union taken as a group.....

[spin]

74. Often it's good advice to never pull a weapon unless you intend to use it.

If your attacker just wants your money, just give it to him. You can always replace your money, wallet, credit cards and your drivers license. You can't replace your life or your health.

If, however, your attacker looks unstable enough that you suspect that he intends to harm or shoot you then you have little to lose by resisting. In such a situation your gun should come out smoking.

I have heard of situations where a gun was "brandished" and a crime was averted. Two of my co-workers were using metal detectors in a lot in downtown Tampa on a cold Sunday morning. A man approached them, pulled a large knife and demanded their money. One of my co-workers pulled his jacket open and placed his hand on a .45 auto that he had in a shoulder holster. The mugger turned and walked off swearing to himself.

Each situation is different.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. You are distorting the lightning statement.

You are over 30 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally shot and killed by a CCW holder. That is the statement. I originally researched it and posted it about a year ago. The statement has nothing to do with how often a CCWer used their gun in self-defense as there just isn't enough data on that.

You are making the same mistake regarding armed self-defense that Kellerman made. You are ignoring those times when the criminal retreats from an armed citizen, no shots fired. I personally know several people who have defended themselves that way, no shots fired. The criminals in each case remember extremely urgent business elsewhere. One even did a backflip through the window that he had just climbed in. In another incident the thug ran to get back in his partner's car but his partner had already stomped on the accelerator. The hapless thug managed to grab the open door and ran alongside hanging on to the door screaming. He got in when the partner tapped the brakes very briefly. But since no shots were fired, your side never counts those as defensive gun uses.

[Marengo]

165. If you have guns in the house and don't lock the door

You are an irresponsible. Might want to shelve any comments on the "responsibility" of other since you clealy don't demonstrate any yourself.

[PavePusher]

50. Can we apply this to voting?

Starting, maybe, tomorrow?

If that works well, then we can test it on guns too. Deal?

[right2bfree]

130. Annual registration could also weed out the druggies, drunks and mentally ill from the gun pool. nt

[right2bfree]

129. Bingo! Have your gun stolen, you get to pay for it....in jail, if you dont have a safe.

This #### has got to stop!!!

[GreenStormCloud]

136. Unconstitutional. You fail again. N/T

[gejohnston]

121. some are stolen from

police and military or black market. I am sure the ATF has done studies on it, if they are doing their job. The serial number issue is already covered under the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

[oneshooter]

133. A few years ago a BATF internal audit found that 400 of their guns were missing! n/t

[aikoaiko]

167. This makes sense only if you can prove the seller knew the buyer was prohibited from buying

And there are already laws against that type of transfer.

[PavePusher]

19. If you have evidence that shops and shows are breaking the law....

please present it, and report it to the police.

Otherwise, you need to retract your malicious insinuations and accusations.

[rl6214]

24. Pretty good stretch there skippy

[Euromutt]

27. Yes, by certain *buyers* acting as straw purchasers

I can't imagine you haven't come across the term before, but a "straw purchaser" is a person with a clean criminal record who poses to the seller as the actual buyer of a firearm, but in fact intends, unbeknownst to the seller, to pass the firearm on to the actual purchaser. And yes, it is a federal felony to act as a straw purchaser.

According to an ATF report from ~10 years ago, more than half the firearms that are "diverted" into the black market are purchased by means of straw purchasers. But since psychic powers don't exist in real life, there's no way for the seller to determine that a straw purchaser isn't a legitimate buyer; thus, the sellers in those situations are acting in good faith, and thereby not breaking the law.

[right2bfree]

128. Yeap!

[DWC]

38. More than 80%

of all guns used in violent crimes (except domestic violence and premeditated murder) have been stolen at some point.

Semper Fi,

[right2bfree]

127. Strawman purchasers and other "law-abiding" gun owners, thats how. nt

[Blown330]

7. Looks like two drive-by's...

...happened here. One at the school and one by the OP, both have their source in ignorance.

[virginia mountainman]

17. To bad you can't rec a post!!!

I would have "recced" this one!!!

[Hangingon]

21. +1!

[rl6214]

22. More snarky comments but no comment

about the gangbangers that would have committed this crime regardless of what laws are or would have been in place.

Why don't you address the issue of the gangbangers?

Why don't you address the fact that there were no cops present to protect these kids, as there normally isn't and that the police don't stop crimes but merely write reports and clean up the crime scene after a crime has been committed.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Gang related.

"Residents in the area say there are many gang problems near the school, and police believe the shooting is related to a rodeo shooting and another shooting on Sunflower. All are believed to be gang-related or gang retaliation involving the Early 103 gang, which is known to be from Yates High School, and the Murder Mob, noted to be from Worthing High School. "

What law is going to stop this sort of behavior?

[Euromutt]

28. Isn't it remarkable how jpak carefully omitted almost all mention of this being gang-related?

Second sentence in the article:

Six people were shot on the field of the southeast Houston high school during a powder puff football game and police believe it was in retaliation for other recent gang-related shootings.

You'd think that was kind of an important element in the story, along with the passage you quoted, A.L.

It's also notable that jpak omitted any mention of the "mystery shooter" who apparently opened fire on the shooters, possibly wounding two of them.

[MyrnaLoy]

30. fail

looks like he didn't edit his post and it clearly says in his OP the police believed it to be gang-related. Before you trash someone you better read their post. Almost? Hand grenades and horseshoes man. jpak: 1, you: fail

[Euromutt]

41. Whatever, lady

The only place jpak made any mention of the incident being gang-related was in the line about "a car full of people whom police believe were gang members <driving> onto the field." Even the fact that it was the suspected gang members who initiated the gunfire was left out of the OP. I'd say that counts as close enough, and you for your part need to learn not to read into posts what you want to read, but what's actually there.

[WatsonT]

56. I think the most violent gangs should be outlawed entirely

and the rest carefully regulated and registered with the state.

Also no open display of gang colors.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Major 1st Amendment problems. N/T

[WatsonT]

59. Also sarcasm

I was treating the gang problem like how guns are treated.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. Oops. Sorry. N/T

[DWC]

39. The very real possibility

of finding myself in any similar, life threatening situation that can not be anticipated or avoid is precisely why I practice concealed carry.

Semper Fi,

[right2bfree]

126. Thats Texas for you, Land of the "law-abiding" gun-owners...right! nt

[GreenStormCloud]

137. Interesting that you claim that street gangs are law-abiding.

They aren't.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

163. But they ARE gun owners

Ya gotta give 'em that much .

And as previously stated , yearly registration will weed them out !
I can see them now , all dutifully lined up , manila folders in one hand ,the other jealously and convulsively clutching their nads .

[WatsonT]

177. I guess we could try to emulate places like Detroit

or DC. What with their historically low murder rates and strict gun control laws.

:sarcasm:

[Taitertots]

166. The NRA and the super majority of gun owners support common sense gun control

"They need more guns at Powder Puff Football games"
Why do you support that when gun owners and the gun lobby vehemently oppose it?